In some jurisdictions it is declared by statute that, with specified exceptions, no action shall be maintained on any contract made by an infant, unless he, or some person lawfully authorized, has ratified it in writing after he attained his majority.37 No particular form of words is required by the statute to make a confirmation of a debt contracted by a person when an infant, and they need not amount to a direct promise to pay, but they must import an unequivocal recognition and confirmation of the previous engagement.38

26 L. Ed. 87; Wells v. Selxas (C. C.) 24 Fed. 82; Richardson v. Pate, 93 Ind. 423, 47 Am. Rep. 374; Green v. Green, 69 N. Y. 553, 25 Am. Rep. 233; Eagan v. Scully, 29 App. Div. 617, 51 N. Y. Supp. 680, affirmed 173 N. Y. 581, 65 N. E. 1116; Shipp v. McKee, 80 Miss. 741, 31 South. 197, 32 South. 281, 92 Am. St. Rep. 616. See "Infants," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 81; Cent. Dig. §§ 54, 55.

36 Leacox v. Griffith, 76 Iowa, 89, 40 N. W. 109; Mehlhop v. Rae, 90 Iowa, 30, 57 N. W. 650; Hegler v. Faulkner, 153 U. S. 109, 14 Sup. Ct. 779, 38 L. Ed. 653 (under Nebraska statute); Johnson v. Storie, 32 Neb. 610, 49 N. W. 371. See "Infants," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 31; Cent. Dig. §§ 54, 55.

37 Ward v. Scherer, 96 Va. 318, 31 S. E. 518; Bird v. Swain, 79 Me. 529, 11 Atl. 421. In the absence of such ratification in writing, the sale by an infant, after coming of age, of merchandise bought by him on credit during his minority, does not render him liable for its purchase price, either in tort or contract Lamkin & Foster v. Le Doux, 101 Me. 581, 64 Atl. 1048, 8 L. R. A, (N. S.) 104. See "Infants," Dec. Dig. (Key-No.) § 57; Cent. Dig. § 1S9.

38 Ward v. Scherer, 96 Va. 318, 31 S. E. 518. See "Infants," Deo. Dig. (Key-No.) § 57; Cent. Dig. §§ 136-148.